Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
SPONSOR
STATION
CSPAN 4
CNN 3
CNNW 3
WETA 3
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
FBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 41
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)
CBS
Oct 3, 2012 9:00pm EDT
treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. well, actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law which says if you are out of health insurance for three months than you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law. and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions there's a why reason governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care, it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that insurers, you've got to take everybody. now, that also means that you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but can't detail how it will be, in fact, replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts was because ther
FOX
Oct 3, 2012 6:00pm PDT
explicitly prohibited in the law. let's go back to what governor romney indicated.. under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre-%+ existing conditions. actually, governor, that is not what your plan does. what it does is to duplicate what is already the law, which says, if you are out of health insurance for three months, you pan end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company cannot deny you if it has been under 90 days. but that is already the law. that does not help the millions of people out there with pre- existing conditions. there is a reason why governor romney set up a plan he did in massachusetts. it was not a government takeover of health carr. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. what it does say is insurers, you havv to take everybody. that also means yyu have more customers. but when governor romney says he will replace it with some thing, but can not detail how it will be replaced, and the reason he said the system in massachusetts is because there is not a better way of dealing with the pre-existing conditions problem. he says
Current
Oct 3, 2012 10:00pm PDT
the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated; that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. governor what your plan does is to duplicate what is already the law, which says that, you know, if you are out of health insurance for three months then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it has been under 90 days. but that's already the law, and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it was the largest expansion of private insurance, but what it does say is is insurers you have got to take everybody. that also means you have more customers, but when governor romney says he replace it with something, but can't detail how it will in fact be replaced -- and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts is because there isn't a better way of dealing with the preexisting conditions. it reminds me of how he is going to close loopholes, but we don't know the details.
CNBC
Oct 3, 2012 8:00pm EDT
a much better job in enforcing the trade laws than we've ever seen before. he's pushed china. he just won three cases. he won a case on pipe to put thousands of people back to work. he won a case of tires that put people back to work. and he just filed one on auto parts. look, mitt romney's talk is cheap. he'll go back to this -- he's working on currency. we're all working on currency. mitt romney will go back to the same paradigm that we had before. signing agreements that are good for wall street but not good for main street. >> even though this tax increase that we're about to see is going to increase taxes for anybody making more than $250,000. >> which tax increases you talking about? >> the fiscal cliff issue as we see the tax cuts expire at year end. >> well, the president said he wants to continue those tax breaks for people earning less than $250,000. it's the republicans that say no, we won't give anybody anything unless the millionaires and billionaires get their tax cut too. they don't need -- they need to pay their fair share. and we -- >> thanks, richard. >> thank y
Current
Oct 3, 2012 5:00pm PDT
walton, founded wal-mart. their six children -- actually five children and one daughter-in-law, the six -- these six individuals in the next generation now have more wealth than the bottom 30% of the american people. >> cenk: it's a stunning fact. >> al gore: i'm sure they are good people and all of that. it's not an attack on them but it is a vivid illustration of how our country is getting so unequal. and by the way, the ability of people to go into the stores and buy things and get the economy in healthier shape is severely damaged when all of that wealth is at the top. >> jennifer: what is so interesting to me is the sense of victimization that those who are very wealthy feel about this discussion on the tax policy. and it's not an attack on them. >> eliot: martin wolf said that something that is gaining popularity in europe is a wealth tax. there is a notion that you do have a wealth tax to permit overtime -- >> cenk: i wish them a lot of luck on that. we have about twoing minutes before the debate. i want to ask you guys who do you think is going to win? don't play the expecta
CSPAN
Oct 3, 2012 9:00pm EDT
what is already the law. if you are on health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage. insurance company cannot deny you if it has been under 90 days. that is already the law. that does not help millions of people out there with pre- existing conditions. there is a reason why governor mitt romney said of the plan he did in the massachusetts. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. what it does say is insurers -- you have to take everybody. that also means -- when gov. romney says he will replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced -- and the reason he said of the system he did in massachusetts is because there is not a better way of dealing with pre-existing conditions. it just reminds me -- he says he will close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. we do not know the details. he says that he is going to replace dodd-frank, wall street reform, but we do not know exactly which ones. he will not tell us. he now says he will replace obamacare and insurer as all the good things and it will be in there and you do
CSPAN
Oct 6, 2012 8:45pm EDT
on the surveillance law, at least you have in the past. how would a biden administration be different from an obama administration if that were to happen. >> god forbid that would ever happen, it would be a national tragedy of historic proportions if it were to happen. but if it did, i would carry out barack obama's policy, his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure they get a fair break, making sure they have access to affordable health insurance, making sure they get serious tax breaks, making sure we can help their children get to college, making sure there is an energy policy that leads us in the direction of not only toward independence and clean environment but an energy policy that creates 5 million new jobs, a foreign policy that ends this war in iraq, a foreign policy that goes after the one mission the american public gave the president after 9/11, to get and capture or kill bin laden and to eliminate al qaeda. a policy that would in fact engage our allies in making sure that we knew we were acting on the same page and not dictating. and a policy tha
CSPAN
Oct 6, 2012 7:00pm EDT
unnecessary. under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. let me be simple about this. my state of north carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from massachusetts, which you just asked about. there is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. there's nothing -- it's nothing but a political tool and it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue we should not be dividing america on. we ought to be talking about issues like healthcare and jobs and what's happening in iraq. not using an issue that divides this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. it's wrong. >> mr. vice president, you have 90 seconds. >> well, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. i appreciate that very much. >> you're welcome. you're welcome. >> that's it? >> that's it. >> ok. then we'll move on to the next question. this one is for you, mr. vice president. george bush has derided john kerry for putting a trial
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)